Reviewer Policy

The purpose of the review is to provide the author with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also provide explicit feedback on how to improve their manuscripts so that they will be acceptable for publication. Manuscripts submitted for publication in NJHS journals are subjected to DOUBLE BLIND peer-review. All the comments reviewer make will be transmitted to the authors.

The reviewers are advised to provide best possible review and should easily answer the following questions when conducting a review:

– Is the work novel and of high standards? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
– That are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
– Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
– Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
– If a protocol is provided, for example Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically.
– Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper?
– How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do?
– If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

In the case of manuscripts deemed worthy of consideration, we would appreciate additional advice from the reviewer on the following :

– Is the manuscript clearly enough written? If not, how could it be improved?|
– Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims?
– Have the authors cited the previous literature appropriately?
– Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?